3 ms·
>Epidemiological studies of sugar consumption — which look at patterns of health and disease in the real world — were dismissed for having too many possible fac
by antt 8y ago
>Epidemiological studies of sugar consumption — which look at patterns of health and disease in the real world — were dismissed for having too many possible factors getting in the way. Experimental studies were dismissed for being too dissimilar to real life.
>One study that found a health benefit when people ate less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because that dietary change was not feasible.
>Another study, in which rats were given a diet low in fat and high in sugar, was rejected because "such diets are rarely consumed by man."
The OP post makes no sense if you read the article.
The pro-sugar meta study rejected all studies which found sugar to be unhealthy. Biological studies were rejected because they were too restrictive and nutritional studies because they weren't scientific enough. Yet when the studies had a pro-sugar result they were accepted by and large regardless of their quality.
Which is more likely:
A). Someone is incompetent and randomly picked some dozens of studies which all fit the needs of their source of funding
B). Someone competent picked studies that fit the needs of their source of funding.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
- DoreenMichele 8y agoMy comment actually allows for scenario B: conflict of interest. We all routinely do things because of financial pressure that we wouldn't do without it. When I had a corporate job, co-workers routinely said "I need my job" as an explanation for doing or not doing a particular thing at work when other people were suggesting "You should do X!" whether in jest or in earnest.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y agoC.) B occurred, but in the context of the entire body of research being somewhere between reading tea leaves, and phlogiston theory. I’m arguing for C, which is sort of like arguing that Monsanto influences research around GMO crops and online discussion of same, but also that GMO crops are not the devil. The fact that the sugar industry twisted the “science” doesn’t mean the science was good, it just means they disliked the conclusions. I’m not suggesting that excess consumption of sugar is wise, or that the current average consumption in the West isn’t excessive. That doesn’t imply that sugar is poison, and that eliminating it completely is healthier than keeping consumption at a reasonable level. Personally it seems clear that few people can spare so many calories in a day that the average sugar intake is healthy. That is an argument against excess that’s been known since antiquity. μηδέν άγαν
- Fomite 8y agoThis is a common tactic for industry science denial. Epidemiology studies aren't acceptable because of unmeasured confounding and they have no way of suggesting mechanism of action. We need lab studies. Lab studies aren't acceptable because they're not in real people. We need RCTs. RCTs aren't acceptable because they don't generalize to the population well. We need epidemiological studies.